Sai Baba claims that
everything he does is for the best of all. To be accepted by him, one must have
complete faith in him, and this leads to some extraordinary social conditions.
Among those who frequent the ashrams it is customary to think they themselves
know virtually nothing with certainty, certainly not Sai Baba’s inscrutable
motives and plans. The very same persons will nevertheless claim to KNOW that
Sai Baba is God, the Avatar Himself - which is a peculiar exception to their
proclaimed cosmic ignorance. This same willful ignorance is applied to all
questions involving money. Nothing can be questioned, one has no right to know
anything about it, even in most cases where one is a donor oneself. It is said
by believers that all is under the 'Divine Control' of him who knows
everything.

The multi-billion
dollar question about SB is, how much money is donated and how it is spent. The
answer is not forthcoming from SB or his Central Trust which is a financially
unaccountable organisation (with government-granted tax and import duty free
status). The UK magazine The Economist had a front page notice about the
'Sai Baba Empire' back in early 1990, where they
estimated his assets at over US$2 billion. They also reckoned him to be the No.
1 foreign exchange earner in India at that time! That estimate must have been
based on known or visible assets, not on any hidden ones. Calculations based on
known donations plus numbers of donors etc. put the current total figure far
higher than two billion. How many billions there are, and to where they go (and
evidently for a considerable part to where they appear to disappear), are never
told and no one outside the inner circle of the Central Trust etc. can find out
the answers. This total lack of accountability certainly does not raise the
confidence of those who have the least real knowledge about Indian corruption,
pay-offs, kick-backs and ingrained financial corruption. It is to examine and
try to redress some of the cover-ups about money matters in the Sai mini-empire
that I aim to do in the following. Firstly, I shall speak from personal
experience.

My experiences as a donor

In 1986, my wife and I had
two interviews, two mornings running (22nd & 23rd December). During the
first private interview with us two, SB said to her, "He worries about
money." True enough, at times, I admit. Yet there are few indeed who do
not at some time or other. I was not worrying at all at that time, however,
for I replied, "Swami, I have so much money now, more than I ever
had". This was so, for I had recently inherited some money from my
mother, but rich by common Western standards we certainly were not. I added
that I wanted to donate money. He said I could choose what for, the medical
or educational trusts, "It is not for me, but for my students," he
added. Shortly after, he pointed to me and told my wife, "Good, good...
very good man"! Directly, he examined my hand and asked if not the ring
I had was my wedding ring (it was on the right hand 3rd finger, but it was
not the usual type - being of silver and gold with small inset malachite
stones. A skeptic would say in retrospect that SB had been sizing up the
thickness of my finger for the ring to be 'produced' next day. A minute later
he said he would call us for another interview next day when he would give me
a ring. Shortly after that he waved his hand before my wife as she exited
from the private interview room and a silver amulet appeared, which he gave
her. I have described the main part of that and the following day's interview
at length in my book where I did not mention the financial aspect, for I had
been led to believe that any talk about such matters involving SB was very
wrong.

That I had already donated by post £3000.-
was discreetly not mentioned by me, nor did SB mention it. In my desire to
believe in his omniscience, I thought that he must already know! It seems
likely to me now that he did not. If he did, he could have been informed by
his staff that a person who donated this sum was presently at the ashram. In
that case he could have given us interviews because he reckoned he might
extract another donation. I do not say he did so, but that it is highly
possible.

The leader of our Danish
group, who sits on the veranda & spoke with SB several times before our
first interview - a gullible and not very astute person who tends to swallow
whole everything he is fed by SB - spoke to SB on the veranda a few times
about our group and a possible interview before it took place. This leader
was always very tight-lipped about what went on, and has since firmly proved
his active engagement in the cover-up of scandals surrounding SB, having
shown that he is a conniving, unreliable person (i.e. reliable for SB only).
Therefore, I suspect that he may have provided information about me and my
profession to SB (even unwittingly). In short, there is no evidence whatever
to suggest that SB had any data from 'omniscience' in this instance.

During the first interview, SB had said to me
twice, "Be Ready!" I did not know to what he was referring, but
later realised that it must have been about the money he was then expecting.
Next day in the private interview, Baba soon asked me "How much money
are you going to donate?" I had not thought of this at all in the
interval! A sum came to my mind - "£6,000, Swami," I said, knowing
that this would make £9,000.- in all. This amounted to well over half of my
inheritance. I added that the money came from my mother. He asked what her
name was and I told him. He said, "I will build an indoor sports hall
for the students and hers and your name will be put up on the wall." I
then believed SB's claim that - due to his being omnipresent in the inner
heart of everyone - he knew (or could know) all things. I did not think that
he could not have known her name, but that seems fairly obvious to me now
that I am convinced of his fallibility. The typical devotee will assume that
SB was just pretending that he didn't know her name. This is one of SB's
smartest ways of duping people, to pretend that he knows all, but behaves as
if he does not! But the problem is that he pretends so much about so many
things so often that he loses all credibility. There is no reasoning with a
person who is ensnared in the system of excuses that surrounds SB and absolves
him of everything imaginable in advance! (I was once rather like that too.)
Of course, SB never did put my name or my mother's up anywhere, and I have
never regretted it. I was not at all keen on the idea anyhow but would have
accepted it 'if Swami wanted it'! I have always disliked boasting and telling
what good things one has done... as SB used to teach and once almost followed
himself. Now he has demonstrated firmly that he is the biggest braggart in
the world!

Incidentally, in the second day's interview,
SB simply took a ring with a white (clear) stone from somewhere - it was
between 1 and 3 carats (the SB standard 'smaller diamond ring') and proved to
be too small for my finger. "Never mind", he said. My wife and I
were then taken into the private room again with SB. When we came out, he
produced the white stone ring again and sent it around to some ladies. He
asked an Indian lady to describe it. She said it was a diamond set in a gold
lotus ring. He confirmed both points. He then asked what I wanted and I said
I did not know, so he said, "I will make you a better ring". He
blew three times into his closed fist - in which he had been holding the
white stone ring - and when he opened his fist, another ring with a larger
green stone was there (about 5 or 6 carats). Whether this ring is a genuine
diamond or not has not yet been confirmed, but it will be tested when I
manage to arrange this with recognised diamond experts, and get this filmed
by an independent media company. No such test of a stone alleged to be better
than a white diamond has been done under expert and public scrutiny so far.
These green stones in SB rings are believed by the great majority of devotees
to be extremely rare and valuable diamonds.

Though it crossed my mind at the time that SB
seemed so eager to draw me into donating and so perhaps the whole set-up was
another extremely clever Indian way of deceiving people into giving money, I
immediately rejected the thought as sinful! After all, does not SB do so much
for the poor, his students etc. (Since then, I have come to know that his
students are mostly from well-to-do middle-class, and often power-broking
rich, families, not least sons of 'top people' from abroad). No, I put all my
trust in SB and his assurances that "not a single naya paise is
ever wasted", unquestionably a lie, (and one repeated brazenly even
after the Central Trust was found sadly wanting in its incomplete accounts in
1993). Later during this visit which lasted for 3 months until March 1987, I
came to know quite well a genuinely honest elderly gentleman of the Seva Dal
who was working in the ashram. He told me how various workmen (e.g. those who
were re-painting the temple (mandir), easily swindle sums from the
ashram through overpricing materials used etc., which my friend was ever
trying to stop and therefore he went to Bangalore to buy paint for the temple
himself eventually. How naive I was, misled by all the books and fine talk to
think that the massive corruption and dishonesty that marks India out among
big nations were magically absent from anything to do with SB!

Having received by post from my bank in
Norway the cheque for £6000 for SB I brought it with me to darshans to 'be
ready' whenever there would be a chance to hand it over. By accident I left
the cheque in a plain envelope behind at darshan one day. It was collected up
and delivered to the public relations office as lost property where it was
returned to me when I went there searching for it.

There was a follow-up to this. I went to
check with the head of the ashram (Kutumb Rao) on whether my former donation
of £3000 had been received. I had received no confirmation by post, no
receipt. He told me that they did not issue receipts, but to come back later
and he would tell me if the money had been registered! He borrowed my
own bank's receipt for in payment of this previously-sent cheque to help him
see whether the donation was registered. When I came to check this, he told
me he had lost my bank's receipt. But I produced another
(which he had evidently not suspected could exist). This he also borrowed and
'lost' before I finally got a positive (verbal) reply. He had most likely been hoping
he had destroyed my evidence of having sent that cheque. (But unknown to him,
my Norwegian bank would supply any further copies I may request).

Before we left the ashram in
March 1987 I was given a chit by the public relations office to sit in the
front row (they knew, of course, about the present cheque that was still to
be delivered). SB came straight over to me that day and took the letter, but
as he took it he had one of those quite ugly facial expressions that is often
seen.

A few days later I inquired
whether the latest cheque was in fact cashable by SB, since it was actually
made out to me and countersigned by me, (I admit that I had been rather
amused by his fumbling and unconvincing behaviour), whereupon he reacted most
angrily and half-shouted that my current donation cheque would not be
accepted but he did not give me the cheque back when I asked for it either,
but waved me off just like he would do to a troublesome coolie. But I
persisted and asked, "Did Swami say so?". "'Yes!" he
blurted, apparently taken aback at my impertinence for asking this (I felt he
was lying.)! I do not believe SB actually did reject it, for there was
another problem: the cheque was made out to me, not Sai Baba or the Central
Trust, and - though I had countersigned it - it was probably not cashable
into another account!

My bankers in Oslo became
very agitated about the irregularity when I told them I no longer had the
cheque (Mr. Kutumb Rao had refused point blank to return it, even though he
would not accept it either (Probably, SB still had it!). Such good manners
from the head of the ashram called 'The Abode of Supreme Peace'!). My Oslo
bank set about investigating, and - more to their relief than mine - got the
money refunded and changed back from sterling to Norwegian kroners again.
Incidentally, the exchange rate had improved and I received back the sum plus
the equivalent of the interest I would have lost otherwise. This was
registered by me then as a typical SB leela. It may have been, yet now I am
no longer quite so convinced. However, the fact that my money had been
returned made me the more keen to donate it later, which we did! It has been
alleged by a person who was employed in ashram security to be a standard
practice there, to refuse money first... thus increasing the eagerness to
contribute (and usually more too!). This kind of 'double-bottomed' scam is
typical of clever crooks in India, where on outsider can fathom the depths of
deceit that are common in this place of a constant often desperate struggle
for survival.

As to where our money actually went I could never get an answer. Even
if you have sound reasons for suspecting that officials have embezzled your
donation – such as by avoiding or – if asked – refusing to give a receipt or
in other ways you are supposed to accept it as “part of Baba’s plan. He
knows.” In short, if you feel reason to question almost anything said or done
by officials (not to speak of by SB himself), you will often be put off with
a gruff affront or a threatening hiss (as if from a snake).

Only in recent years were any kind of receipts issued for donations
received. Incidentally, it was said by SB in discourses that receipts are
always given for donations, but we did not get any until in 1998, when we
registered as flat-donors and received proof by receipt from the European Sai
Org., which by then solicited for and handled all such donations!

Some time after the incidents described at length above, we re-donated
the £6000.- by sending it from Norway, but did not get any note of receipt
from the ashram. However, since I thought it wrong not to follow up whether
the money actually arrived where it should, I asked the new Head of the
Ashram, Mr. Narayanan, about it several times during our next visit there. At
length he gave me a verbal confirmation. Apropos, when years later I asked
V.K. Narasimhan why Narayanan was not any longer head of the ashram, he told
me of his being 'sacked' from his post and from the Central Trust in 1994 by
SB due to having built a luxury villa for himself in Bangalore with
undisclosed funds. This was also told me independently by a VIP, the honest
and decent Robert Bruce, whose word I do not doubt, and who knew this from
top US leaders 'in the know', such as John Hislop or Michael Goldstein.

In 1994 we donated 900 copies of the first edition of my book to the
Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust, but could not ensure that the money
was delivered to the Central Trust this time either, despite having written
to them on the advice of V.K. Narasimhan to avoid embezzlement by The
Convenor. Shortly thereafter, when the press descended on Prashanthi Nilayam
after the murders in the ashram and began to dig into things, The Convenor,
Mr. Suri, was caught with the equivalent sum in his rooms to that taken in
the sales of my books (mainly sold 'under-the-counter')! He could present no
accounts for the Publications Trust whatever! Still not having learned, my
wife and I in 1998 donated a further US$6,000.- for the 2 month-per-annum use
of a room at the ashram. It took such a long time before the meaning of what
I had found out sank in!

I only hope that at least some reasonable proportion of what we and
uncounted others have donated actually does go to the needy and suffering in
India. Some evidently does... but no one can estimate the wastage in the form
of paying for useless buildings, statues, solid gold and silver cricket cups,
free education for sons of very rich Indians and all the other underhanded
'overheads' that have become more and more a feature of the ashrams and the
Central Trust.

Sizing up likely donors, and diamond gifts to soften
them?

I think it likely now that I could
have been sized up in advance by SB as a possible donor. I now know without
doubt that SB is most interested in getting hold of people who are thought to have
important roles or influence in society, or are wealthy, and I also know for a
fact that he has used his staff to collect information on people. VKN was asked
to make lists when SB was indisposed, and on request I provided VKN with a list
and professional details of the group I was leading on that visit. The names
were sifted and my wife and I were called to the interview, but not the rest of
our group (who were not professionals. Incidentally, Narasimhan remarked in
admiration of the democracy demonstrated by the fact that one member of the
group was a hairdresser, because, he said, it would be unthinkable in India for
an academic to be in the same group as a hairdresser!). VKN was used
occasionally before for this, when he selected an Australian friend of ours.
This removes some of the mystification about how SB chooses people and groups
for interview (i.e. many devotees believe that he is acting out a preset cosmic
plan about who to call and when).

Another Sai follower of about my age
- a businessman from Austria - told Baba that he wanted to make a donation and
he was also asked openly by SB while sitting at the front of the crowd at
darshan how much money he would donate. He named a fairly large sum, and
offered the cheque at darshan on his 50th birthday. SB took him in to an
interview, where he eventually produced for him a standard silver and enamel
ring with the SB face and torso. In another instance, I was asked by V.K.
Narasimhan if I knew a Danish man, Mr. Kaufman, and whether he had arrived, because
SB kept asking VKN if he had come. Probably SB had received a letter from Mr.
Kaufman in advance, quite possibly also indicating a desire to donate. Later
during that visit, Mr. Kaufman sat beside me at an interview where SB produced
for him one of the standard smaller sized gold rings with an alleged 'white
diamond'. (Apropos the monetary value of what SB gives to satisfy donors, that
'diamond' was virtually identical to the one Ron Laing had, which I once
examined closely. Laing's 'diamond' was so worn that it reflected no light at
all. But it is impossible for a diamond to be worn or scratched in that way,
but somehow rationalised away even that! Likewise with a very worn and dull
green 'diamond' worn by Mrs. Ferguson, the wife of Maynard Ferguson the
trumpet-player.)

The whole attitude expected of those
given access to Sai Baba is one of 'lying flat at his feet', even literally
(and kissing them too, if one should be granted such a boon!). This cult of
humility is extended where possible to all persons apparently acting on Baba’s
behalf and carrying out his divine instructions, whether or not one knows that
such instructions were ever given. In his atmosphere, any signs of apparent
'grace of the Lord' are taken as marvelous boons. Many feel they have not
earned these favours, and this creates the right attitude for wanting to
compensate somehow. SB's many remarks about sacrifice as a prerequisite to
'realisation' and a righteous (dharmic) life, lead followers to think
that they will gain spiritual benefits through shedding their excess properties
and monies. After all SB's talk (on the lines of rich men not getting through
the eye of the needle into heaven) saying how too much money is a burden, a
millstone and how property is not a 'proper-tie', the blessed devotee is soon
softened up to donate, the more the better (both from his/her viewpoint and
that of SB too!). SB is clever enough to give boonsbefore the
money is offered, for he has a sharp eye for who is who and he doubtless knows
more than he lets on! He certainly has all the means to invest with! In this
way, no one connects their donations with the grace they feel they are
receiving (and maybe even have justly earned)... and they are hurt to be told
that they could be victims of an extremely clever and typically Eastern form of
milking!

Many believe, with
considerable justification, that donations can lead to interviews, being
blessed by SB (i.e. qua God Almighty), to gaining good karma and even
liberation from the wheel of life. The rich are always milling close around
SB's feet and it is well-known how he gives much of his time to certain
millionaire donors. To reinforce the feeling of the usefulness of contributing
money, SB often underlines that there is absolutely zero waste of funds in his
ashrams and his Central Trust. But this is definitively an untruth, as will be
shown.

Westerners are
often quite aware that most so-called voluntary charities have employment
costs, publicity costs, and any amount of overheads and other drains on their
funds. Often they deliver less than half of the money contributed to the actual
projects for which money was given. SB claims that 100% is used, and that it is
due to the wholly voluntary labour of his service organisations like the Seva
Dal and the Sathya Sai Organisation. This is a tasty bait, but there is a hook
too, as will be seen! There are admittedly doubtless many persons without large
funds - or even much willingnessto
contribute anything financially or in kind - who get to interviews and who even
receive materialisations from Baba, but this does not alter the observable
drift of SB's affairs towards massive funding, great expenses to promote his
person, plus wasteful projects and embezzlements which no one can gain full
information about. One clearly observable fact supporting this are the ladies
who usually occupy the first couple of front lines at darshans. They are
preponderantly Indians, and are mainly dressed in very expensive silk saris and
are loaded with jewelry, far more so than the average Indian can afford. Some
are rich foreigners who adopt Indian fashions, such as the Iranian 'princess'
and her various super-rich US relatives often seen there. Such persons can be
seen to go up for interviews much more often than those in simple clothing.
They are seated in the front lines well before those who have queued up for
hours are allowed in to find a place.

Another very rich
source of money for the Central Trust is testaments from devotees who have
died. Several reports tell of millionaires who have left all they had to the
Central Trust. My wife and I shared a car from Bangalore to the ashram with a
long-term lady devotee from the US who was planning to will her properties to
SB, and this was causing much anxiety to her family. (In Norway, fortunately,
the offspring are guaranteed at least 2/3rds of their parent's estates by law,
which removes the cause of many frictions and injustices in family life). No
one can estimate the income from these sources to SB, it is top secret! Since
SB devotees boast of so many millions of followers world-wide, this would surely amount to a very vast sum?

Office-bearers of all kinds in Sai
institutions may be said only to be following the example of their Lord and Master
Divine. As one of Baba's closest companions ever - for seven years - the only
person to be borne in ceremonial chariots together with Baba at religious
festivals, M. Krishna stated the case: “Generally speaking there will be
very few people who will continuously be with Swami after eight or ten years.
Somehow or other they will fall off, but whatever their disappointment they
will not want to talk about it out of respect for others. They will keep quiet.
When we differ with someone, we often need courage to tell him. I mean healthy
criticism, not backbiting. If we differ with Swami we must have the courage to
tell him, and he, as well as the rest of us, should accept healthy criticism.
In those days, as far as I knew, he never accepted any criticism. As far as I
know him, he will all the more resent criticism now when he has become an
international figure.” ('The Abandoned Brother' Ch. 17 of Miracles Are
My Visiting Cards by Prof. Erlendur Haraldsson, London 1987, p. 182).

Further, M. Krishna, who was often
with Baba day and night for long periods, in explaining how he thought
Baba had such power over people, said: “You lose your individuality. He will
only like people who do. Again, according toIndian religious
tradition you have to surrender yourself totally to the guru. Personally, I
feel that Swami will only like to have around him 'yes-men'. It is the same in
religion and politics.” (ibid, p 184).

Under such conditions of
unquestionability and unaccountability, the potentiality for despotism can
easily be imagined.

SB's hand stretched out for massive funds

What is the difference between the
accumulation of massive funds in Baba's case and those of other major Indian gurus?
Is it that much money is visibly put to very good use? Admittedly, it seems
indisputable to unbiased observers that some considerable amounts have been
siphoned off by more or less corrupt persons (prime examples being the
Convenor Mr. Suri, Ashram head Mr. Narayanan, and Head of Accommodation, Mr.
Nataraj). It is literally taboo within the movement to suggest anything that
goes against Baba's frequent declarations in discourses that "not a naia
paise is wasted" (i.e. 'naia paise' = the smallest of Indian coins
worth practically nothing at all today). One need hardly also mention the 20
kg. golden cup worth 10 million rupees presented to the winners of the Unity
Cricket Cup arranged by Sai Baba at Puttaparthi, nor the more than 22
individual 2 kg. solid silver cups given to each player... there are many
such luxury undertakings with donor money. Free education to the sons of some
of the richest families in the land. The massively expensive showpiece
buildings either to celebrate SB to enhance SB himself: The Eternal Heritage
Museum, the Chaitanya Jyothi, the statues, his peculiar chariots of silver
and gold, massive light and firework shows, flower decorations and
extravagant thrones galore. Specially security-built buildings have been
built for his housing (plus his constantly attendant boys, who act as valets
etc.). There are well-appointed residences at Prashanthi Nilayam,
Dharmakshetra, Trayee Brindavan, Sundaram, Kodaikanal, Muddenahalli and more
besides. Everything has been funded, of course, by devotees' money.

In Sathya Sai Speaks (Vol. 27, p. 22),
SB claims of the super-specialty hospital that it entails "no waste of
money". Yet the head of the Blood Donor dept. was sent away in 2000 for
misuse of its funds. This banishment was published in Sanathana Sarathi,
where Dr. Bhatia was declared as having no connection with any SSB
institutions. It is reported by reliable persons that he was selling blood
that had been donated by devotees, and had made a fortune of more than $1
million. This may simply be mud-slinging to blacken him because of his lurid
accounts of SB's sexual abuse of his students. In either case, it proves that
SB backs the claim that money WAS wasted after all.

Money is frequently used on projects small
and great that are a waste or that simply fail, such as is reliably reported
to have occurred with a large part of the much-trumpeted Rayalaseema Water
Project due to corrupt entrepreneurs, and led by a Mr. Chackravati - a former
government worker who had been sacked for major embezzlement! Later he became
head of the ashram at Puttaparthi. Uncalculated sums have been wasted on
excellent new buildings that were demolished and/or entirely rebuilt within a
few years (Whitefield's Sai Ramesh Hall of 1993, pulled down and rebuilt )
and also charming older buildings (such as the original mansion at
Brindavan).or buildings replaced by others (e.g. the Sai Ramesh Hall at
Brindavan ), the library building inaugurated as the Kasturi Reading Room
pulled down along with other buildings to give space for the ostentatiously
luxurious VVIP building. Not least is the virtually unused airport (which
stood as if deserted for years and is seldom used at more than 5% capacity)
(See more details at 'Wasteful Projects')

By denying that he has any selfish desire
whatever, and saying that he never "stretches out his hand" for
money, SB effectively disarms those few who get near him and dare to suspect
him of being mercenary, saying it is not for him personally but for his
students, the poor etc. He has said that he "wishes no connection with
money or property" (Sanathana Sarathi, 1-1998, p. 4), that money
collection is forbidden in the Sai. Org (Sathya Sai Speaks Vol. 11, p.
50 and Vol. 14, p. 362), that money is not taken by real teachers of
spirituality (Sanathana Sarathi 4-1999, p. 89 ) and he has often
railed against "swamis and gurus" who make money out of
spirituality and collect money for "committing heinous acts" (Sathya
Sai Speaks Vol. 5, p. 101).

However, anyone with eyes to see can observe
how much is lavished on celebrating him personally at endless festivals, all
his birthdays and in building monumental museums etc. to honour him. He
personally dispenses cash to many devotees, to some students, as any close
reader of the massive literature by admirers also clearly reveals. Further,
though he has sometimes insisted in discourses that he NEVER accepts ANY
donations whatever, the fact is that he nevertheless accepts massive amounts
all the time. He even sometimes asks directly for donations, both officially
in Santayana Marathi (e.g. for the hospitals, the water project and –
though admirably enough - various cyclone, flood and earthquake disaster
relief funds) and he also shows clearly that he is most interested in
individual devotees who he gets interested in donating through ambiguous talk
and promises. His emphasis on selfless service and continuous claims of his
own exemplary leadership in this, causes the number of trusting followers to
increase and so does their desire to contribute, of which financial donations
may be thought of by them a secondary matter (wholly unimportant in his
view!), but which is in reality very important for those well-heeled
contributors who may feel guilt about their wealth when seeing the poor of
India etc. and seeing what SB apparently does and contributes (even though
the actual work and contributing is all done by others).

All SB trust funds and social
institutions are opaque. The claim that accounts are governmentally audited cannot
be checked. Even so, most of the government is in the pocket of SB, and
governmental corruption is proven again and again to be so all-encompassing
that auditing by them would be like that of the proverbial goat set to count
the oats. No one except the minions of SB has access to the data about them,
their finances, their selection or admission criteria. The atmosphere of
secrecy and 'unspoken answers' is quite claustrophobic to anyone who wants to
find out or check anything about their activities. For most devotees it would
be unthinkable to question the handling of money under SB's 'omniscient'
rule, and those few who are forced by circumstances to ask critical questions
are treated like dirt. Therefore, any general claims can be made, any statistics
concocted, without there being any means to check - let alone cross-check or
investigate independently - anything about the insiders' decision making. Any
financial investigator would have little more to go on than what SB or his
officials choose to say.

Who directs the soliciting of
money for the Sai Org.? In this connection, when SB asked Central Coordinator
for Japan, Hira, ' Who is your guru?' Hira answered 'You, Swami'.
"No!" said SB "It is Indulal Shah!" (Hira reported this
himself in some material which was circulated internally in the Sai Org.).
Who is Indulal Shah to be a 'guru' for Hira? Well, he is the Chief Accountant
of the Central Trust, a Maharastran ex-politician 'godfather' with sworn
follower families throughout the international Maharastra diaspora, many of
whom crave office as Sai Org. leaders, national chairmen, coordinators etc.
(too often for the sake of status). Shah nominates his cronies - especially
Maharastrans in foreign countries - to many posts. He scotched SB's attempt
to disband the Sai Org. and sack him totally in 1989 or so by getting his
many cronies to send reports to him, (not to Hejmadi at Central Office as SB
laid down). T. Meyer of Denmark is Shah's right-hand man in Europe, as is
Hira in Japan.

With Shah's signature and
backing, Mr. Hira became the chief international promoter of the scandalous
and ineptly-named 'currency of love' share investment scheme in the late 90s.
He toured USA pressing leaders and devotees to buy in. (The VIP devotees Rita
and Robert Bruce told me this and how they hated it!) The investors paid in
foreign currency for investment in rupees on the Bombay Stock Exchange. They
were guaranteed 5% return on their money, while the rest (supposedly 5% or
more at the time) would go to the Central Trust. Not only did many investors
lose through the regular devaluations of the rupees, but there were problems
if one wanted to export the money from India due to their strict currency and
anti-profit restrictions. It turned out to be a financial fiasco and devotees
were then asked to sign over their shares to the Central Trust. Such a
blatant swindle! Whether anyone ever got a refund of any money is not known.
It is definitely 'not done' to mention - let alone complain about - such
things in the Sai Organisation, of course, for it might reflect badly on the
unstoppable, victorious Divine Mission!.

Ceiling on Desires?

Around 1990, SB made a great fuss
about a program he (or someone else) named "Ceiling on Desires". It
was heralded as the program that would more or less save the world and humanity
from ruin. It consisted in a call to reduce four kinds of desire, those
connected to the use of 1) money 2) time 3) energy and 4) food (not necessarily
in any set order). (See Sathya Sai Speaks Vol. 22, p. 4 & Summer
Showers at Brindavan 1990, p.29).

The Sai Org. took this up and
promulgated it. SB detailed the US-naturalised Phyllis Krystal (oddly, never a
member of the SSO) to hold workshops on this Ceiling on Desires. It was curious
to observe that, when she visited Copenhagen for this purpose, she stayed at
the country's very most luxurious and expensive hotel. It was probably quite
natural to her - as a millionair - that only the best would do. When seen in
the context of how VIPs are treated in SB's ashrams, the VIPs like her have
special seats for darshans and all other arrangements and special accommodation
of varying degrees according their relative importance. There is a special
block of fully equipped flats or suites like a hotel with a receptionist
reserved for the use of the specially chosen. Then there is the VIP palace, a
truly luxurious looking building reserved, apparently, for the VVIPs. Why does
SB, who proclaims "there is only one caste, the caste of humanity",
give so much special treatment to VIPs of different standing? It seems that the
Ceiling on Desires has different heights according to the status of the devotee
in worldly society.

The great boon from practicing
'Ceiling on Desires', according to all reports, is all that is sacrificed gains
extra spiritual merit for oneself! This kind of sacrifice is literally filling
up one's 'savings account' (good karma) in the after-world, according to
SB! Is this really a great boon, or a great con? Well, if you're not an investigator
like me, you'll have to wait until after you're dead and hope to find out then
(but you may not)! It is implicitly understood by many, that any financial
proceeds of sacrifice can be made out to the Sai Central Trust!

Others who have preached the
'Ceiling on Desires' program include many of the so-called Central Coordinating
leaders of the SSO. Many of these men (no women among them) jet around
regularly from country to country to hold talks (with never more than a few
fresh points to mention, at best). They all visit India at least once a year
(when they have to attend the Guru Purnima celebration in July) and many visit
more often. The amount of money thus spent on airline fares and all the other
costs of such travels mount up to huge figures. For example, Mr. T. Meyer
announced on Danish TV in March 2002 that he had visited SB 29 times (since
then at least once more). He has also been to numerous countries to attend Sai
workshops etc. The sum he has spent on airline tickets to India alone - wherever
it may come from - must therefore amount to at the very least more than the
equivalent of $US 20,000.- before all the other expenses etc. are added.
Charles Penn had visited about 30 times before he died, likewise a longish list
of SB's favourite authors. Multiply this by the all those office bearers who
roughly the same, i.e. those who should set an example in Ceiling on Desires. I
knew a large number of lower office-bearers who visited very often, not to mention hundreds
of regulars from all over the world who visit at least yearly. No wonder SB was
pronounced India's major foreign currency earner by The Economist
(London)!

One wonders why SB no longer refers
to the admittedly high-minded 'Ceiling on Desires'. One can but observe that it
has gone out of the window, both in theory and practice.

In my extensive
sociological study of the Sathya Sai Organisation, written down chiefly in
2000, I concluded on the basis of the collected data and analyses of its
various practices, that
one of the main functions it actually fulfils, although in theory it should
not, is to channel money from the widest possible catchment area of devotees in
rich countries. In stark contrast to what SB says, his organisation
contributes, indirectly and increasingly more directly, to the funneling of
donations in huge amounts into his account and under his control. Why does SB
'allow' this discrepancy? The simple answer would be because money is a
necessary ingredient of improving education, health and living conditions for the
poor. To support this, SB points to the institutions like colleges, hospitals
and village projects he has instigated. But why then does he repeatedly deny
that he has any connection whatever with money - saying, "Where money is
present, there I am absent"? This is clearly but a very clever device that
hides the real situation and serves to put him apart from other money
collecting men of god to avoid awakening skepticism, especially in Westerners.
It also plays on the dualism of the supposed mystery of the avatar, the divine
aspect is pure withoutcash, the human one is a
different matter! This might however also be a case of a personality split
between an ordinary villager and a transcendent mediumism or possessive spirit,
or even just plain two-facedness, because:-

Firstly, he has
stated that he countersigns every donation cheque personally. On a visit to his
nephew, who was manager of the State Bank of India in Puttaparthi in 1986, I
was actually allowed to flip through a wad of about 200 cheques to the Central
Trust all signed by SB in his recognisable hand.

Secondly, he claims
to be omnipresent, so how can he ever be absent where money is, or anywhere
else? The answer to this is straightforward, he speaks with two tongues and
confounds himself, whether he realises it or not. Yet an omniscient God should
realise everything and so avoid such revealing self-contradictions.

Thirdly, but above
all, an increasingly obvious fact is how his sheer financial power exerts huge
influence on SB's behalf in India, which is seen in the way all the rich and
politically powerful flock to his throne, and with them come the corrupt and
criminal elements. Anyone who follows events around him has seen how all are
made welcome! No waiting (or less than an hour, at least for the sake of
appearances) for the very wealthy or powerful! There can be no doubt that
money, which alone oils the wheels of politics and privilege in India, buys
many favours. That SB was able to escape scot-free from the investigations of
the police and the CBI into the murders under his very nose, and that the many
sworn affidavits of victims of sexual abuse by him can make no headway in
India, speaks its own language. That language is the one that talks loudest in
India!

The biggest change in SB's relation
to money seems to be his open acceptance nowadays of donations from known
criminals. Formerly he was offered huge sums from disreputable people like a
famous Mr. Singh, a Calcutta racehorse owner, which he gently refused (I know
this from V.K. Narasimhan who told me the details as he had to write the letter
declining the donation). The change in this policy became fully evident since
about 1990, for he is now giving interviews to Indian power-brokers, including
embezzlers and Mafia-connected politicians. A reliable informant, a good and
tried person of many years' ashram experience, related what Swami said to a
lady at an interview. When asked why he allows so many bad persons to occupy
positions and receive what seems to be or most people regard as 'Grace' (i.e.
his physical presence) etc., he replied that at the foot of a lighted candle
there is darkness.

On SB's 70th birthday, when the
extensive Rayalaseema project to provide water in the local area was
inaugurated, Mr. Srinivas of the Central Trust of the Sathya Sai Organisation
read out from the podium in front of SB a long list of major donors and the
sums given (but only of those giving 10 million rupees or more!) All this was
duly recorded on film and soundtracks, also transcribed and printed
afterwards.. These donations totaled many millions of dollars, large sums
coming from various devotees from such countries as the USA (e.g. Mr. Sinclair)
and Japan. It was noticeable too that the names included the contributions of
Bhangarappa, a known corrupt Karnataka politician, who gave ten million rupees
(i.e. one crore), and two famous Indian 'liquor barons' - which means illegal
operators - one of whom, Mr. Reddy, was murdered in Madras only a week or so
later.

The morning that the news of Reddy
being shot dead arrived, V.K. Narasimhan came over and told me about it, for
earlier he had recounted for me how he had been taken by SB in his car to visit
the same Mr. Reddy in his palatial residence some months previously. Reddy had
told SB that he wanted to get out of politics and other (criminal)
involvements, which wish was anyhow now fulfilled definitively!

Other money coming in to the Trust
and being accepted is said by a well-informed lady in an important post with
access to inside financial information in Delhi (a defector from SB whose
identity obviously cannot be revealed for security reasons) had checked the
Central Trust's transactions and found that sums of money come from
'laundering' of illegal funds; donors including the known Indian drug- and
gun-runner Dawood Ibrahim, who is a known criminal in hiding somewhere in the
Gulf region! Apparently it's a question of buying into prestige.

V.K. Narasimhan was disturbed that
SB broke the rule set by Mahatma Gandhi (of whom VKN was an ardent follower)
never to accept so-called 'blood money'. VKN made the best of it eventually,
however, by hoping thattainted money was being laundered not only
financially but also perhaps 'spiritually' in now going to the benefit of the
really worthy and needy. Why SB accepts ill-gotten gains is a question devotees
should seriously ask themselves. The aphorism that best answers this seems to
be "When money comes, morality goes".

Timothy O'Cleary reported on the internet
about the massive building project ('Chaitanya Jyothi') of which "the
estimated cost was placed between US$3 million to US$5 million. Dr.Goldstein
suggested the following methods for meeting the cost which werediscussed
and finally approved, and we quote: "To organize 100 donors for
accommodation in Building No.8 and 9 and for which each coordinator gave their
quota for the region which they will fulfil before March 2000. Dr.Goldstein was
requested to be in charge for follow up with the Coordinators in this regard.
The estimated cost was placed between US$3 million to US$5 million.
Dr.Goldstein suggested the following methods for meeting the cost which were
discussed and finally approved."

I still have full documentation of the
above directives, sent me while I was still a Sai Org. 'emeritus member' and
the contact coordinator for Norway, and presented on a separate
web page (click to link in). The multi-million dollar 7-storey
building - devoted entirely to the adulation of SB himself - It the 7-floored
Chaitanya Jyothi building exclusively to celebrate SB, was completed and opened
by him (as if a child with a big parcel) at the 75th birthday celebrations.

Buying Into 'God's Time' - SB's favouring the
wealthy

It is considered a great heresy among
believers to point out that SB's time can be bought, for he is God who has
all the time in the world etc. Unfortunately for this bent reasoning, all
this time does not allow the earthbound SB to talk and give interviews to
more than a small fraction of the very large and pressing personality cult
around him. Considering this it is not surprising that people try to use the
normal 'short cuts' like money, personal power and influence and numerous
other ways of obtaining what is then treasured as 'grace from God'. But this
is what often happens in fact, however rosily the transaction is described as
'receiving grace' or 'rewards for being a great Sai worker'. There is, of
course, no deal and no exchange of the blatant sort. The transaction is much
more subtle than that, and from the donors viewpoint there does not seem to
be any connection between what they give and what SB 'donates' of his
attention or time in return. However, one way to obtain donations from
wealthy persons is to make much of them, praise and flatter, and give
privileges, manifest so-called 'diamond' rings for them and give them free
accommodation etc. If they have any decency, they will invariably respond
with whatever they can contribute. This is just what occurs in case after
case, and has done so since long before the famous Dr. N. Bhagavantam left SB
around 1983 at least partly because he evidently detested this! To refuse a
donation - as SB often does - only increases tenfold the fervour of many
donors, who then wish to give much more. It supposedly helps one feel one is
an acceptable person in God's eyes after all!

I was finally convinced of the fact that the
rich purchase time and favours when I saw a couple coming out of SB's rooms
every morning before darshan for over a week while staying at Kodaikanal,
having gone in at least half an hour beforehand each day. They were a Mr. and
Mrs. Sinclair of USA, who are known as the donors of hundreds of millions of
dollars to the Central Trust! Hundreds of millions is correct, it is no
misprint, and their donation then (one of several multi-million dollar gifts
they made!) were announced at SB's 70th birthday (without their permission)
and other of their donations have been written about in Sanathana Sarathi.
(Mr. Sinclair's own account of his relation to SB was also published in brief
in its pages in the 1990s. His total donations alone run into several
hundreds of millions of dollars!). The rich and very influential always get
what is comparative to red carpet treatment from SB, which fact cannot be
concealed. They may have to wait half an hour, but that is nothing by ashram
standards.

India's famous atomic scientist, Dr. N.
Bhagavantam, who had been a simultaneous translator of Baba's discourses for
years, left Sai Baba early in the 1980s after over 20 years of being close to
SB and attending hundreds of interviews etc., and he reportedly told devotees
that this was not least because far too much attention was given by SB to
wealthy foreign and Indian devotees, powerful politicians and the like, and
especially those willing to donate funds, to whom he said that Baba most
often gave rings, amulets and suchlike. Critics of Sai Baba may take all this
as proof that Bhagavantam was right about Baba mostly only making himself
available to those who are likely to give money and rewarding them with more
rings and the like than others. One cannot cross-check the facts here, for no
one keeps any kind of register of who received what. Bhagavantam is on record
saying that Baba's powers and materialisations were genuine (on the 'Who Is
Sai Baba' video). However, defenders of SB spread the rumour that Bhagavantam
left because of envy, or that he wanted to be Vice-Chancellor of the
University when Gokak was chosen instead – or else because his son was
by-passed for some envied position. This only sounded like an attempt to
nullify Bhagavantam's valid critical attitude to SB's activities using the
standard formula against defectors, namely, 'jealousy and envy due to not
getting what they want'. I figure it is unlikely for a person of
Bhagavantam's caliber would be above such considerations; a genuine VIP and
semi-hero in India for successfully duplicating the atomic bomb for India, a
very mature man with considerable national fame and self-confidence
independently of SB followers. Voicing dissent is not a possible choice for
otherwise confirmed devotees and was doubtless hard enough for the
semi-skeptic Bhagavantam to do too after so many years of residence. Had he
wanted to continue serving SB, he of all prestigious Indian public figures
would surely not have left in an alleged fit of jealousy at not getting some
Sai-prestigious post!

A rich ship-owner who once had built up a
company in Bombay, the Norwegian Alf Tidemann-Johannesen, was cultivated by
SB during the 1970s. Nothing has been heard of him since Kasturi and others
wrote up glowing accounts of his supposed devotion to SB. This person glows
by his absence from all subsequent literature! In fact, he too became
disillusioned and left SB quite early on, according to a lady in our Oslo
group who knew him and last met him around 1988 when he visited Norway from
Mexico. He was then writing a book denouncing SB, whom he claimed was a
deceiver. He told that SB had failed in his promises, and had deceived him
about the helicopter that Tidemann-Johannesen claims to have provided to SB
for travel purposes and, not least, giving darshan at his 55th birthday. (A
film showing this darshan was made and distributed by Richard Bock of
California). Tidemann-Johannesen died in 2001. The 'official' Kasturi
biography of SB has, of course, not been amended or commented on this in any
way. The apparent myth of the great luck of this foreign devotee - and the
doubtlessly overblown interpretations of events by the poetic Kasturi - all
are left to live on unaltered!

Flat 'donors' & Recruitment under False Pretences!

Flat donors at the Prashanthi Nilayam
and Brindavan ashrams once used to become 'owners', usually after some years,
by paying an additional moderate sum (by Western standards) to be given the use
of a small unfurnished concrete-block flat consisting of one room, a
bathroom and a kitchen - which last room they were allowed to use a
permanent lock-up for their possessions while they were not in India. The right
to be such an 'owner' was far from automatic... one had to wait for Sai Baba's
personal blessing for this before being allowed to 'buy in'... and many waited
for years, and some without getting permission even when others 'behind them'
did. The right to use the flat could - and still can - be terminated by the
ashram authorities without recourse to any hearing, so 'owner' is a highly
misleading term. A more accurate way to say it would be 'lease-holder without
any ownership rights'. The idea was that Sai Baba granted the grace of tenancy
of his property until such time as he saw fit to terminate this, whether due to
misdemeanour or for any other reason. The term donor - in the sense of flat
donor - does not mean one gets to have one specific room or 'flat', but usually
gets whatever is free, but there are no guarantees in this case either.

There are two entirely different perceptions
of the situation. Devotees used to see the hard-won tenant’s privilege as major
grace from the Lord of the Universe... yes, perhaps as the monopoly contractor
and overall owner of the universe! But one can also lose one's flat if ashram
officials see their way to accuse you of some breach of the rules - for which
they are the main executives. Some devotees have simply had their flats taken
away from them for some misdemeanour in the eyes of the accommodation office.
In one case of which I know the details from the owner, a man with serious
heart problems, the head of accommodation took over his ground floor flat which
he had furbished at considerable expense - without any compensation whatever -
and it was given to an official of the ashram. He was given temporary flat use
on the third floor, to which he could not climb because of his heart condition.
No amount of pleading, talking with Col. Joga Rao, the Sathya Sai Org. leaders,
or letters to SB etc. had any effect whatsoever.

If one saw fit to donate money to
Sai Baba for his various educational or social projects – or for the building
of a flat at the ashram which one may occupy occasionally oneself – one was
supposed to pray hard for the opportunity, as well as eagerly take any action
one could to bring this to SB's attention at darshan and - with tremendous luck
and his grace, finally get the donation accepted! (To neutral observers, it is
clearly an amazing set-up for complete suckers!) Yet it was seen as a great
blessing to oneself to be allowed to donate! Perhaps partial investment even,
in a place in heaven or, failing that perhaps, in recognition at the ashram
(and for some, even a veranda seat!). One example among many, the leader of the
SSO in Denmark was reputed to have donated the proceeds from the sale of his
second home, and he was allocated a better-class top floor flat with a view of
the temple, plus a veranda seat shortly afterwards.

A middle-aged Scandinavian lady we
know very well was living for long periods in India hoping for help from SB -
having to live mostly outside the SB ashrams, due to the time restrictions for
visitors to stay in ashram rooms. She donated what was a considerable sum for
her - ca. $10,000.- in the early '90s in the hope that she would be allowed a flat.
However, she as not told that - when paying the cheque in - one has to specify
that it is for a flat. Otherwise it issent to the general
coffers of the Central Trust. Like others I have met there, she donated while
praying to SB that he would arrange it all (him being supposedly benevolent,
omniscient, and omnipotent etc.). When, after many months, she decided to ask
if she would be allocated a flat, she was told by Joga Rao himself that she
would NEVER be allowed a flat. They had been watching her, he told her, and she
lived outside the ashram etc., but they gave not details as to why she was
treated in this way! We know this lady to be a genuine spiritual seeker and of
high principles of honesty and decency. However, she mostly stayed away from
people (according to the instructions of SB) and so was too socially isolated
there to get any support or be able to pursue the matter further. Besides,
being a believer, she tended to accept the decision as her karma, though
she was obviously hurt by the completely uncalled-for and exceptionally nasty
treatment she received. After all, she freely gave so much money too!

A mature American lady who left SB
about 30 years ago after very long and close association contacted me after
gaining confidence in me from some of my many postings on the Internet to help
those who have been the victims of SB's duplicities and treatment of women
devotees etc. She said that she once had properties in the US, all of which she
sold to be near to SB, donating for rooms in Prashanthi Nilayam and Brindavan.
She sees that now as 'a devastating loss'. SB cut her off suddenly for a reason
he gave, but it had nothing to do with her. She soon realised he had simply
confused her with another lady. This is just one of a number of similar accounts
of SB's betrayal or ignoring someone (note: when he had got the money) that I
have been told at first hand through the years since I met SB.

The price of these flats (i.e. of
insecure tenancies) spiraled, and by 1990 they cost far more than their
building cost. By this time, donors were welcomed with open arms and were
recruited actively by the Sai organisation. No more waiting for the Lord to
select you personally! However, the office bureaucracy has to be negotiated to
obtain a key to a flat. If one abuses the rules in any way - such as by trying
to misinform to keep the flat for a few days more than 2 months per annum, all
rights can be lost permanently by the mere rubber stamp by an accommodation
official! Also, one does not get the chance to become 'owners' of a
permanent flat anymore if one is not among the specially privileged.

What can be wrong about people
giving money of their own free will to projects that Baba runs, such as educational,
medical and many other social facilities? They have to be financed and why
should not Baba give interviews to those who are able and willing to
contribute? The only problem with this is that SB has time and again said that
he has nothing whatever to do with money.

I received the following letter
from a mature and evidently very sensible lady in the Netherlands:

"There
is something I wanted to let you know for a long time. It is not that
important as the sexual behaviour of the s.b. But it fits into the criminal
organisation - as always: if there is something wrong, there are a lot of
things wrong. The financial situation: SB always said: come to me with empty
hands etc..... In 1994/95 our chairman- Mrs. Anne Marcelle van Weereldt- told
us very excitedly, as if she were giving us a huge present, We have an
opportunity to set up a Holland House in the ashram in PN. -Location: the
stinking sheds on the North side of the ashram. We need as many participants
as possible. And we can stay there for 6 months every year! It looked very
good for elderly people. Minimum donation HFL.13.500 which was about US$
6.000.-

Lots of us -including me-
participated in the "Holland House". The only thing we got was a
short note - and the bank statement of course - which said that we had paid
the sum necessary for a room in a North building under a certain number.
Later on we got a plastic card with our photo, with the amount of the
donation on it. After a few months we were told: It is not a Holland House, it
is a Holland/Switzerland House. This sounded very good, people from
Switzerland are also clean and quiet. When the first buildings were finished,
we got the message: You can only stay for 6 WEEKS every year. Well, this is a
very clever concept; there are 4 levels in every building. Each level has
about 25 rooms. Which makes the whole building good for 100 rooms. Each room
is good for about 6.500.- US dollars x 100 = US dollars 6.500.00.- BUT: if we
can stay only 6 weeks a year, it means that every room has several 'owners'
because 52 weeks shared by 6 is at least 8 possibilities to give out to
someone somewhere in the world a certificate that says that he/she has given
a donation under a certain number... This gives only the right to have a
private room - not to be shared with others, during only 6 weeks a year, and
that is always possible. But the concept is so very very clever, because
there is no limit in getting donations this way. And by now the TENTH -10th-
North building has been finished!!" (Stijntje Riemersma)

The above is quite correct! Many other foreigners who paid the full sum
- already US$6,000 by 1996 - were shortly afterwards informed that they were
not to have the prospective grace and privilege of a flat of their own, but
instead the right to stay for up to two months per year in one of the new
kitchenless one-room/one shower room flats, all having an absolute minimum of
(metal or plastic) furniture and virtually no fittings. A number of devotees
from the USA and other countries complained about this sudden change in rules
of which they were informed AFTER they had paid their donations, but they were
powerless to change anything. One has to accept divine commands, even though it
was actually Col. Joga Rao and Indulal Shah who instituted this regime. The
amount of money that the ashram could thus obtain per flat was multiplied by at
least six! In addition, the donor also has to pay a constantly increasing sum
of 'rent' while occupying them. Flat donors can actually outnumber the several
thousand flats at PN by anything up to ten to one, for many do not use their
full quota (which can be calculated on average). Donors have not always been
guaranteed flats at all times (esp. not during festivals or conferences). For
10 blocks of 100 rooms each (= 1000 rooms), giving at least 6,000 donors and
US$6000.-, the capital gained amounted to income in all up to US$ 36 million!
The total cost of construction was but a small fraction of this sum. So at
last, one can say that donors really are making large donations, no longer just
buying fairly cheap rights to two rooms!

I have been informed that in 1991
there were 8,000 would-be apartment donors on the waiting list. Even if we use
the price per donor family from 1996 (US$6,000.-), the total potential donation
resource this represents is US$ 48 million. But the number of rooms actually
required at the maximum would be 1/6th of 8,000 = 1330. Hence the ashram stands
to make very large profits indeed. It will be argued that the excess goes to
good works, the water project etc. But the fact remains that these figures are
never presented to the donors or made public. One cannot but wonder why the
secrecy. Those who know the state of India and corruption there today have some
idea of what can be siphoned off.

As if to
ensure maximum benefit for ashram/Trust finances, the authorities run a
constant campaign to hinder foreigners buying property of any kind outside the
ashrams, such as within Sathya Sai Taluk near Puttaparthi or in Whitefield.
Since the mid-1980s, at least, ashram officials tell newcomers at information
lectures about the many pitfalls of buying property in India. The information
is certainly not all incorrect, for few without deep local knowledge and the
language can negotiate a secure purchase! The lecturers emphasise that only by
donating for an ashram accommodation is one secure, a direct deception, as seen
from the above! Further, many 'owners and donors' have left their flats
permanently for one and another reason, not least due to the continuing exposé.
However, there are no refunds! All know this, and I too, because my wife and I
also further willingly donated in full for this vastly over-priced
accommodation offer before we became convinced of the truth of the many
allegations.

Prashanthi Nilayam has one
golden rule that is never broken by its officials: there can never be a cash
refund! This is taken to such lengths that, if one pays in too much for books
or other goods by error (whether your error or theirs!), no cash will be returned
- however large the sum - but it will in time (and if fully documented) be
added to one's credit on a personal account. Money cannot ever be taken out
of an account to close it, it must be used! This is how SB's proclamation of
neither needing nor ever taking anything from his devotees is followed up in
practice! Or doesn't the omniscient God notice or know that this is happening
under his nose?

Concluding
remark

The multi-billion dollar question
is not really so much how SB has generated so much wealth - this is after all
not so uncommon with Indian swamis and temples. Reputedly the fabulously
richest of all temples in Tirupathi, and not far behind it the Jagannath
Temple in Puri may perhaps compete for No. 1 spot with SB still. Self-styled
'Baghwan' Sri Rajneesh was the possessor of similar undeclared riches before
he was indicted on so many charges in the USA (and sold off his 84 Rolls
Royces in Texas in one cheap lot to a dealer, but remained super-rich even
after that). The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi sect is also rich beyond reckoning,
apparently having virtually the economy of a small African country.

No, the priceless question remains
why SB, who so disdains money and property, through the trust he rules over
should be one of the richest persons and biggest property owners in that land
of such poverties and sufferings? That he claims to own nothing is a way to
disarm gullible believers in him , but is merely a technicality of
bookkeeping. Even so, it is all beyond public inspection. One asks whether
the money has been truly well-employed, or wasted on too great a scale to
build yet more temples and to erect other white elephants, mostly to enhance
the fame of SB himself. Questions about the misuse of huge funds expended in
building an isolated Super-Specialty Hospital is cogently discussed in
Serguei Badaev's overview of the SB Super Specialty Hospitals' wastefulness.
If this had not been so, the answer would have been clear and acceptable. Yet
the putative fact remains, SB's wealth is used for gaining influence
and political power, without any visible beneficial effects on politics or
politicians, and rather to the contrary if the current decline of political
honesty at all levels in India is considered. It seems unavoidable to
conclude that those who think they 'know' the answer - that SB has divinely
good plans that no one can fathom - are foundering in flight from the facts,
falsehoods and foolishly placed faith.